Ajay Pal v. Urmila

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.07.2023 Ajay Pal ....Appellant

Versus

Urmila

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Praagbir S. Dhindsa, Advocate for Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sumit Gujjar, Advocate for Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the respondent.

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) Notice to the respondent-wife was issued subject to the appellant paying an amount of Rs.25,000/- as an interim litigation expenses on 22.11.2017 in the shape of bank draft in the name of the respondent.

On 24.04.2018 Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards interim litigation expenses was ordered to be paid to the respondent before the Mediator on the adjourned

-2date i.e. 10.05.2018. But no payment was made to the respondent. Mediation proceedings could not fructify.

It appears that none appeared on behalf of the respondent during mediation proceedings as nothing was paid to the respondent-wife. Even the appellant stopped appearing before the Mediator on number of occasions and the case was referred back to the High Court on 08.10.2018. On 03.12.2018, learned counsel for the appellant sought time to make payment of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses on the next date of hearing i.e. on 14.03.2019. The payment was not made and on 24.07.2019 also, learned counsel for the appellant sought more time to remit the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the respondent. Despite number of opportunities, the amount was not paid by the appellant and ultimately vide order dated 15.11.2019 the defence of the appellant was struck off. Even thereafter, on two dates i.e. 23.01.2020 and 14.09.

2022; the case was adjourned in order to enable the appellant to pay litigation charges amounting to Rs.25,000/- but till date, no such payment has been made. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this Court has no alternative but to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution. Ordered accordingly.

-3Liberty is given to the respondent to seek recovery of the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs.25,000/- in accordance with law. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 06.07.2023 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No